|
The
cold war was over by 1989 with the fall of USSR, demolition of
Berlin wall & China’s embracing a market economy. For
United States, this eliminated major challenges to its hegemony.
Few power centers remained that were not under the US umbrella,
the prominent ones being Arab League, OPEC and NAM. Arab League
and OPEC were small clubs in comparison to the non-aligned
movement (NAM), of which India is a significant member, among
some 115 other countries who agree to the Nehruvian principle of
“panch sheel”. Even though NAM is insignificant in effect,
it is defiant in spirit to the first world supremacy. Against
this international backdrop, after the cold war was over, in
1989, Kashmir insurgency began.
Pakistan
Military systematically started to train disenchanted youths
from Kashmir valley and infiltrated these trained men with
weapons across the border. The military of Pakistan enjoys a
close relationship with United States and it is very unlikely
that they would have gone ahead with such a plan without getting
a nod from their mentor. The results were devastating for India
– a huge military expenditure that was useless to start with;
fruitless even in case of a win and an impediment to growth
during the boom years of technology wave that India was riding
on. Over 40,000 Muslims dead, more than 100,000 Hindus of the
region displaced, economy of the state shattered, brutal
oppression of the army breaking all spirit and hope - Kashmir
was India’s Achilles’ heel.
In
1947, Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh was still hesitating over which
country to join, when Pakistan attacked the state. Maharaja had
no choice but to accede to
India. The prominent party in the valley was National Conference
of which Sheikh Abdullah was the leader. Abdullah was close to
Nehru and supported India. National Conference organized the
Muslims and prepared the defense of Srinagar while the Indian
army arrived. After a year, truce was declared under auspices
of UN. Nehru, confident with Abdullah’s support, took the
issue to UN and offered a plebiscite in Kashmir. Had there been
a plebiscite at that time, Kashmir probably would have joined
India. However, neither country pulled back their army – a
prerequisite to the plebiscite and years dragged on.
Between
1950 and 1953, Abdullah, then chief minister of Kashmir, started
toying with the idea of independence. Nehru, afraid of
secessionist uprising, imprisoned him. He was released
after he gave up the demand for self-determination and in 1975
became once again the chief minister. After his death, his son
Farooq Abdullah continued as chief minister of the state until
Indira Gandhi eyed the state for election benefits. Jagmohan, a
governor specially appointed by Mrs. Gandhi, illegally dismissed
Farooq’s elected government in 1984. He imposed a range of
measures to change the distinct cultural identity and to pull
the state into "national mainstream". Results of his
oppression followed and the popularity of Islamist parties grew.
These parties participated in the elections in 1987 and would
have won, had it not been for the active rigging, beating and
torturing of candidates and polling agents. Farooq’s National
Conference, having teamed up with Congress under Rajiv Gandhi
and thereby losing people’s trust, won. For the people of
Kashmir, loss of faith in political and democratic processes was
complete.
The
first bombings, murders and kidnappings by Pakistan-backed
guerrillas began in Kashmir in 1989. In early 1990, the Indian
government again appointed Jagmohan as governor. He arrived with
a fanaticism that matched the zeal of the Islamic guerrillas and
in the next six months military oppression, abuse of civil
rights, brutal excesses of Indian army had the entire Muslim
population of the valley revolt against Indian rule.
During
the nineties Kashmir was bleeding. The game changed when Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) came to
power in 1998, flexed India’s muscle the same year by carrying
out nuclear tests and demonstrated its super-power aspirations
before the world. Being a rightist party, BJP knew the rules of
power and correctly concluded that to emerge as a super power,
India needs to go beyond petty skirmishes with Pakistan. It
preferred either a friendly neighbor with strong trade and
cultural ties or an undivided pre-partition India. It refused to
play along with small tit-for-tat war on the borders. In
February 1999, Indian Prime
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee made the historic bus journey to
Pakistan to meet Premier Nawaz Sharif to sign the bilateral
Lahore peace declaration. BJP had initiated processes to
befriend Pakistan.
Peace
between the countries would spell surge of power for India.
Pakistan military, under General Pervez Musharraf, was called in
to encroach into Kargil in May 1999 to thwart peace initiatives
(there are some speculations that Musharraf masterminded this
military move and kept Nawaz Sharif in the dark). India went on
the offensive; its backup plan - if Pakistan goes nuclear, she
would retaliate and run over Pakistan. The BJP was enthusiastic
on the bigger war and its outcome – undivided, pre-partition,
stronger India. United States had no option but to intervene.
Clinton forced Pakistan to back down. It became apparent that
the weak democratic Government in Pakistan had no maneuvering
space to match the bold steps of the new Indian Rights. Musharraf,
the key player of Kargil fiasco, launched a coup and came to
power. Again, knowing Pakistan Military’s ties with US, it is
hard to imagine all this happened without an implicit US
approval.
Then
came September 11th.
United
States realized for the first time that terrorists are an
unpredictable lot and their religious upbringing does not
prevent them from biting the hand that feeds them. It also
noticed that the new India under the BJP Government was showing
willingness to line up behind US. India had withdrawn its
support for Palestine and made an ally of Israel. In fact, often
it emerged friendlier than the traditional European allies of
US. The political map had changed and US foreign policy draft
underwent revisions.
The
terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament in December 2001 and
both the countries mobilized its troops. This time too, BJP was
enthusiastic on the war and US forced Pakistan to back down.
Over the next several months, India waited for a major terrorist
attack that would justify a war. Finally, when India pulled off
its army it was time for another go at friendship.
On May
2nd 2003, Vajpayee
announced conciliatory gestures with Pakistan in the parliament.
Given the foiled previous peace initiative in Agra where height
of expectations of both sides had run all hopes to dust, this
time US jumped to action. On May 5th, it leaked into
media the new official CIA map of the region that shows the
current LOC as the border. Both the countries now know what the
final settlement is going to look like.
The
militancy in Kashmir has also changed over the years. Initially
locals, who emphasized independence, led the militant groups.
However, Pakistan soon stopped supporting them and introduced
pro-Pakistani elements into the battlefield. Over the years,
their influence and activities changed. In the early nineties
the Government and Delhi were the enemy. Lately, as evident by
assassination of Abdul Ghani Lone and many others,
the moderates in the state have become targets. Usually when
militancy fires upon its own people, it signals their lack of
mass support and the impending fall. In fact, a recent poll by
MORI, an independent market research company in UK, showed that
61% of the people of the state want to be citizens of India
while only 6% want to join Pakistan. The alienation of Kashmiri
people from India will not end soon, but the support of
militants is probably on the wane.
Indeed
this is a unique time for Kashmir. It would be political suicide
for any other party in India other than BJP to sit on a table
and compromise on Kashmir. Further, even with BJP in power, it
is hard to imagine any other leader but Vajpayee to go the extra
mile to secure peace. On the other side of the border, had
Pakistan been a true democracy, no party could have compromised
on Kashmir without losing its credibility and votes.
Musharref’s strong hold on power makes this possible. In
Kashmir, elections are over and Mufti Sayeed's People's
Democratic Party (PDP) has emerged victorious after defeating
National Conference. The wrongs done in the election of 1987
have partially been rectified. PDP has good credentials in the
state and common people, who previously supported terrorist
outfits, are throwing support behind the party. Lastly,
the US also seems eager to mop this whole thing up. Every
indication is favorable for a permanent solution.
It
is too early to predict the outcome of this round of diplomacy,
but Vajpayee’s words that “this is the last effort in my
lifetime” may well be true. If this round of negotiations fall
apart, it might be yet a while before peace comes into the
valley.
|